Journal of the Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회지)

The Korean Institute of Landscape Architecture (한국조경학회)
권호 표지

Rank Decision of Ecological Environment Assessment Field Introducing Fuzzy Integral

퍼지적분을 도입한 생태환경평가부문의 순위결정

  • You, Ju-Han (Institute of Industrial Technology, Changwon National University) ;
  • Jung, Sung-Gwan (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Choi, Won-Young (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Woo-Sung (Dept. of Landscape Architecture, Graduate School of Kyungpook National University)
  • 유주한 (창원대학교 산업기술연구원) ;
  • 정성관 (경북대학교 조경학과) ;
  • 최원영 (경북대학교 대학원 조경학과) ;
  • 이우성 (경북대학교 대학원 조경학과)
  • Published : 2006.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study was carried out to provide guidance to environmental policy makers when deciding which assessment fields (biotic, abiotic, qualitative, functional) should have priority for ecological preservation and to develop an objective and scientific methodology by introducing the engineering concept of the fuzzy integral. The grant of weights was used the eigenvalues calculated by factor analysis, and the converted values of indicators were obtained in multiplying the arithmetic values and eigenvalues. The results of the appropriateness and reliability of assessment fields were examined over 0.6, and the results showed that the design of questionnaire presented no great problems. When the fuzzy integral was calculated to determine the rankings at ${\lambda}$=1, 2, 3, 4, 5, respectively, they were 0.646, 0.630, 0.943, 1.423, and 1.167 for the biotic field, 1.298, 1.400, 0.901, 0.580, and 1.456 for the abiotic field, 0.714, 0.674, 0.346, 0.674, and 1.610 in the qualitative field and 1.000, 0.973, 0.943, 1.024, and 1.008 in the functional field. The sensitivity to ${\lambda}$ value showed that ${\lambda}=4$ was the most suitable. In comparison with ${\lambda}=0$ (the arithmetic mean), the range of change was narrow. Because the range for ${\lambda}=4$ was narrower than my other values, ${\lambda}=4$ was sure to be available in ranking-decision. The fuzzy integral is expected to be a method for analyzing and filtering human thoughts. In the future, in order to overcome linguistic uncertainty and subjectivity, other fuzzy integral models including Sugeno's method, AHP, and so forth should be used.

Keywords

References

  1. 권순학(1996) 퍼지 측도 및 퍼지적분. 한국퍼지 및 지능시스템 학회 '96 추계학술대회 학술발표논문집. pp. 35-41
  2. 금종수. 장운재(2003) 조선자의 조선부담감을 고려한 연안 해역의 항행 안전성 평가에 관한 연구. 한국해양환경안전학회지 9(1): 65-72
  3. 김태일(1999) 수리적 기법에 의한 평가모형체계의 가중치 부여 방식에 관한 논의,한국행정학보 33(4): 243-258
  4. 나정화(1999) 대곡수목원조성에 따른 비오톱구조분석. 한국정원학회지 17(4): 167-172
  5. 류지원. 김정환,정웅호(2003) 계층분석법을 이용한 환경친화 계획요소의 중요도분석. 한국환경과학회지 12(9): 897-903
  6. 박원규, 안건용(1998) 주거단지의 환경지속성 평가 지표 개발을 위한 중요 평가항목 선정에 관한 연구. 한국조경학회지 26(3) : 225-23
  7. 박인협, 최윤호(2003) 지리산국립공원 상부운 계곡부의 해발고와 사면부위에 따른 산림구조. 한국환경생태학회지 16(4): 457-464
  8. 박창석, 전영옥, 조영국(2002) 농촌어메니티에 기초한 농촌자원 중요도 평가 및 순위적 관계 분석. 국토계획 37(6): 21-35
  9. 사공정희, 나정화(2005) 녹지 잠재 영향권역 설정을 통한 녹지 단절구역 분류 및 우선순위 선정. 한국조경학회지 33(2) 1-15
  10. 안영희. 김봉찬, 강기호, 조동광. 이철호(2003) 두만강 접경지역 일대의 관속식물상. 한국환경생태학회지 17(3): 187-200
  11. 원제무, 손기복(1996) 퍼지 이론을 이용한 도시철도 노선평가에 관한 연구. 국토계획 31(5): 241-252
  12. 유주한, 정성관(2002) 자연자원 보전지역의 평가모형- 내셔널 트러스트 후보지 선정을 중심으로 . 한국조정학회지 30(2) : 39-49
  13. 유주한, 진연희, 장혜원, 이동우, 윤희빈, 이귀용, 이철회(2003) 충청북도 백운산 일대의 식물상. 한국환경생태학회지 17(3) : 210-223
  14. 이관규, 양병이(2001) 환경평가를 위한 지표의 가중치 산정 방법 결정 모형. 환경영향평가 10(1): 59-71
  15. 이동근, 윤소원, 김은영, 전성우, 최재용(2005) 보전가치평가를 위한 경관생태학적 지표의 활용 및 적용. 한국조경학회지 32(6): 14-22
  16. 이유미, 김성식, 조동광, 정승선(2002) 경기도 축령산과 서리산 일대의 식물상. 한국환경생태학회지 16(1): 104-123
  17. 이진춘(1999) 퍼지적분을 이용한 관능 검사치의 정량화. 경일 대학교 논문집 16: 1-11
  18. 이철규. 오주삼, 조윤호(2002) 퍼지적분에 의한 국도에서의 ITS 구축우선순위결정방안. 대한토목학회논문집 22(3-D): 471-481
  19. 이호준, 전영문, 김창호(1998) 월악산 신갈나무(Quercus mongolica)림의 종조성과 토양환경. 환경생물 16(2): 169-180
  20. 조덕호, 배민기, 엄홍석(2004) 환경 정책 우선순위결정을 위한 환경지표의 중요도 평가. 한국행정논집 16(4): 713-734
  21. 한봉호, 김종엽, 조현서(2004) 함양 상림의 환경생태적 구조 분석 및 생태적 관리방안. 한국환경생태학회지 17(4): 324-336
  22. Bandemer, H. and S. Gttwald(1995) Fuzzy Sets, Fuzzy Logic, Fuzzy Method with Application, London: John Wiley & Sons
  23. Bebi. P., F. Kienast. and W. Schonenberger(2001) Assessing structure in mountain forests as a basis for investigation the forest's dynamics and protective function. Forest Ecology and Management 145: 3-14 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(00)00570-3
  24. Cole, R. P. and S, V. Cordray(1991) What should forests sustain? eight answers, Journal of Forestry 89: 31-36
  25. Gauthier. D, A. and E. B. Wiken(2003) Monitoring the conservation of grassland habitats, prairie ecozone, Canada, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 88: 343-364 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025585527169
  26. Grevilliot, F. and S, Muller(2002) Grassland ecotopes of the upper Meuse as references for habitats and biodiversity restoration: a synthesis, Landscape Ecology 17(Suppl.): 19-33 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015225609385
  27. Johnston. J, M and D, A Crossley Jr(2002) Forest ecosystem recovery in the southeast US: soil ecology as an essential component of ecosystem management. Forest Ecology and Management 155: 187-203 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-1127(01)00558-8
  28. Kapfer. J. A and S, B. Franklin(2000) Evaluation of an ecological land type classification system Natchez Trace State Forest, western Tennessee, USA. Landscape and Urban Planning 49: 179-190 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00070-0
  29. Kessler, M, (2001) Patterns of diversity and range size of selected plant groups along an elevational transect in the Bolivian Andes. Biodiversity and Conservation 10: 1897-1921 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1013130902993
  30. Livingston. M, W. W. Shaw, and L. K. Harris (2003) A model for assessing wildlife in urban landscapes of eastern Pima County, Arizona(USA). Landscape and Urban Planning 64: 131 -144 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00217-7
  31. Martin. H. and J, Comelis(2000) Towards a monitoring method and a number of multifaceted and hierarchical biodiversity indicators for urban and suburban parks, Land-scape and Urban planning 49: 149-162 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(00)00061-X
  32. Miller. J. N.. R. P. Brooks. and M. J. Croonquist(1997) Effects of landscape patterns on biotic communities. Landscape Ecology 12: 137-153 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007970716227
  33. Noss, R. F. (1990) Indicators for monitoring biodiversity: a hierarchical approach. Conservation Biology 4(4): 355-364 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.1990.tb00309.x
  34. Nowak, D. J.(1993) Atmospheric carbon reduction by urban trees. Journal of Environmental Management 37: 207-217 https://doi.org/10.1006/jema.1993.1017
  35. Sidle. R. C. (1992) A theoretical model of the effects of timber harvesting on slope stability. Water Resources Research 28(7): 1898-1910
  36. Skole, D. and C. Tucker (1993) Tropical deforestation and habitat fragmentation in the Amazon: satellite data from 1978 to 1988. Science 260: 1905-1910 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.260.5116.1905
  37. Sukopp, H (2004) Human-caused impact on preserved vegetation. Landscape and Urban Planning 68: 347-355 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(03)00152-X
  38. van Andel, T. R. (2003) Floristic composition and diversity of three swamp forests in northwest Guyana. Plant Ecology 167: 293-317 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023935326706
  39. Waldhart. R.. D. Simmering. and A. Otte(2004) Estimation and prediction of plant species richness in a mosaic landscape. Landscape Ecology 19: 211-226 https://doi.org/10.1023/B:LAND.0000021722.08588.58